CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER Vs. MOHINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The brief fasts leading to this revision petition are that the present respondent was posted as a guard in State Bank of India, Main Branch, Hoshiarpur. On 9th November, 1984, he filed a suit praying for a decree for permanent injunction restraining the present petitioners from transferring him to any other branch in violation of the rules and principles of natural justice etc. During the pendency of the suit, he filed an application dated 28th November, 1984 (copy Annexure P 5 to the present revision petition) under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 and section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the issuance of an ad interim injunction. It was alleged in the application that the contemplated transfer order is stated to have been made on 31st October, 1984 and which was to take effect from 7th November, 1984, was illegal and invalid as the same was in gross violation of the Reference Book on Staff Matters State Bank of India, Chapter II. 23 (xiii) (a) relating to State Bank. as well as against item No. 27, Chapter XX VIII (Policy regarding transfer of Staff), contained in paragraph 533 of the Sastry Award by the All India Industrial Tribunal (Bank Disputes), Bombay (popularly known as Sastry Award). The learned trial Court issued ex parte ad interim injunction.

(2.) The above application for the grant of ad interim injunction was contested by the defendants who are officers of State Bank of India.

(3.) After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, and referring to State Bank of India Rules and the relevant provisions of Sastry Award, it was held that Class IV Employee could not be transferred from his place of posting to some other place without his willingness. Accordingly, ex parte ad interim injunction granted earlier was confirmed. Feeling aggrieved, the defendant petitioners filed an appeal which was heard by the learned District Judge, Hoshiarpur. He also referred to rule 23, clause (xiii) of the State Bank of India Rules and paragraph 536 of the Sastry Award and held that under the former rules which provided for the transfer of the surplus staff only, it was envisaged that suet transfers should take place on the willingness of the employee and in its absence, the junior most should be transferred. Referring to paragraph 536 of the Sastry Award, it was remarked that the said paragraph laid down that there should not be any transfer and if there was any transfer at all, that should not be beyond the language area of the person so transferred. He accordingly held that the provisions of the Sastry Award restricted the transfer of subordinate establishment of the Bank. Accordingly, he dismissed the appeal. Still not feeling satisfied, the defendants have come to this Court in revision against the impugned order.